Standing Committee A

[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move,
That— 
 (1) during proceedings on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (except Clauses Nos. 1 to 4) the Standing Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at five minutes to Nine o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock, except that the Committee shall not meet on Thursday 5th December 2002; 
 (2) 10 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee; 
 (3) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely— 
 Clauses 5 to 15, the Schedule, Clauses 16 to 18, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 19 to 22, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part 3, Clauses 23 to 29, and Remaining New Clauses and New Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill, 
 (4) the Committee shall report the Bill (except Clauses Nos. 1 to 4) to the House not later than Thursday 19th December 2002.
 We propose to meet twice daily on Tuesdays and Thursdays, except for Thursday 5 December when, as members of the Committee know, the Government will be making a statement on the local government formula grant review. It is the view of all parties that they want to concentrate on that important, but extremely complex issue. 
 May I say what a pleasure it is to be in Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Butterfill? It is not something that I have enjoyed previously, but I have heard positive reports about you from my colleagues and others who have experienced your firm and fair chairmanship of other Committees. I am mindful that we owe you a debt, Mr. Butterfill, not only for your chairmanship of our proceedings, but for looking after our pensions. Those of us who may be approaching retirement age are particularly mindful of your assiduous care of such matters. 
 The Bill paves the way for referendums on whether elected regional assemblies should be established in the English regions outside London. Part 1 provides for the Government to cause referendums to be held on whether a region should have an elected assembly. It sets out the question to be asked and defines those who are eligible to vote. Part 2 provides for local government reviews to be conducted by the boundary committee for England before referendums are held. Part 3 provides for the Government to require the Electoral Commission to give them advice on the electoral areas for an elected regional assembly where the Government propose to establish one. Part 4 provides the power for the Government to pay grants to the voluntary regional chambers or assemblies, as they are often called. 
 The Bill will provide for the first time for regions to be given a distinct political voice and to have a real say over the decisions that matter to them. It is therefore an extremely important contribution towards the wider constitutional agenda of devolution and decentralisation to which the Government are committed. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have made clear that elected assemblies will take functions predominantly from Whitehall and its agencies, not from local authorities. In doing so, they will introduce a regional level of democracy as well as reduce bureaucracy. They can give regions the responsibility to take greater control over regional issues such as economic development and regeneration, planning, housing, transport, health, culture and the environment—important issues that are best tackled at a regional level. Such logic has lain behind our White Paper and the proposals that underpin the Bill. 
 I am sure that we will have energetic, detailed and, I hope, good-natured debates in Committee. The issues involved do not unite all parties. The official Opposition are opposed in principle to our devolution proposals. However, they were opposed to our proposals for devolution for Scotland, Wales and, indeed, London. Having initially opposed them and voted against them, Conservative Members then reflected on the matter, saw the good sense in what we were doing and changed their minds. I wager that a similar pattern will emerge under the proposals that we are about to discuss. We will hear much protest and opposition to the Bill in Committee, but after it is enacted, referendums are held and elected regional assemblies come into being—

Philip Hammond: For the elucidation of the Committee, is the Minister predicting that all regions will eventually choose to have elected regional assemblies?

Nick Raynsford: I am happy to reply that that is a matter of choice. We do not predict; we only make available the option. Rightly, it will be for the people of each region to decide. The people for whom the Bill provides should decide the matter.

Edward Davey: Will the Minister be more open with the Committee? Would he prefer all regions to adopt regional assemblies?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I reiterate that the matter is one of choice and people in the regions will determine the outcome. The Government are clearly committed to devolution. That is our position. We have set out the options and I am confident that many regions will choose to adopt regional assemblies.
 I do not hide from the fact that there is not much enthusiasm for devolution in some regions, however, which is why we are providing a permissive framework that will allow the option. It is not the Government's job to tell individual regions what to do. We will give them the choice and I expect some to take that choice because it is an attractive proposition. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party support the principle.

Desmond Swayne: Given that the referendums in the Bill are only advisory, the Minister's preference is important.

Nick Raynsford: As I have already said, we believe in choice and devolution: giving the people within a region the opportunity to have the potential, huge and advantageous freedom of being able to determine matters that are important to that region. It is ultimately for the regions to decide, which is what the Bill provides for.

Edward Davey: Imagine that the referendum decision went 50:50—exactly the same numbers voted yes and no and the Minister had to decide the outcome one way or another. In that hypothetical situation, which way would the Minister vote?

Nick Raynsford: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but it is only too typical of his party that he should devise such a fanciful scenario to test my commitment.

Lawrie Quinn: Talking of hypothetical propositions, is the Minister aware that the Leader of the Opposition recently appeared in a northern television studio, in Newcastle, and said that when he was Prime Minister he would reverse legislation on devolution? Does that not stand in stark contrast to the idea of choice for the regions? Is the proposition that the Opposition leader will be Prime Minister indeed hypothetical?

John Butterfill: Order. I am prepared to allow a little latitude and something of a Second Reading debate at this early stage, but I remind hon. Members that we are supposed to be considering the programme resolution.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. After a brief reference to my hon. Friend's intervention, I will return, quite properly, to the programme resolution.
 The official Opposition opposed our policy on devolution for Scotland, Wales and London and then reversed their position. Of course, it was the previous leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who gave those pledges about reversing the Government's commitments on devolution for other areas. In my estimation, he will see his successor—whoever that may be—make a similar U-turn on devolution for the English regions. 
 As far as Liberal Democrat opposition is concerned, they support the principles of regional devolution, which we welcome. However, they will no doubt claim that we should go further and faster. We look forward to hearing their debates, but I suspect that they will reveal all too clearly the characteristics of a party that has not held national office for 80 years and is strong in ideas but not necessarily in experience. 
 In the course of our discussions, there will be scope for thorough scrutiny of the Bill. We have provided for 10 sittings, which will allow more than sufficient time to examine the detail of the important provisions. At the same time, there are arrangements for an expeditious report.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister concede that the really important provisions of the Bill are the ones to
 be taken on the Floor of the House? This Committee is therefore something of an artificial entity. It will consider the detail of the Bill before the principles have been considered.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point: it is slightly odd for the Committee to start its scrutiny on clause 5. However, that reflects both the timetable of business in the Chamber and the importance of clauses 1 to 4. Those clauses set out the constitutional issues that should rightly be considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. Having said that, I do not agree that the items that we will consider in the next 10 sittings of this Committee are in any way unworthy. They are detailed provisions that will have a considerable impact on the way in which referendums are held and in which people can express their views in the regions. It is right that those provisions should be scrutinised thoroughly and fairly. I look forward to that process.

Philip Hammond: I, too, am delighted to have the opportunity, once again, of serving on a Standing Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Butterfill, and that of Mr. Benton. I know that we will have a firm but fair guiding hand throughout our proceedings.
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to face the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in a Standing Committee. The Minister will not remember this, but the first Standing Committee on which I sat was one in which the Minister was at the Dispatch Box. I am especially impressed by the Minister's innovation in the shape of the mobile Dispatch Box that he has brought with him to aid him in his deliberations. 
 For that Standing Committee, which took place about a month after I was first elected to the House, I consulted one of my senior colleagues on what was expected of a Back Bencher. The senior colleague, who shall remain nameless but who was fresh from 18 years in government, said that all a Back Bencher does is turn up and shut up. I duly arrived at the Committee, only to be told by the Opposition Whip that I was expected to provide 20 minutes' worth on the first group of amendments. The Minister will not remember this, but—rather cruelly, given my naivety—he scored quite a put-down on me. I have never had the opportunity to meet him in Committee again. Five and a half years later, I await my chance. 
 That occasion was a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Standing Committee and the Minister has remained a remarkably fixed star in what might be described as a shifting firmament. I am delighted that he is able to contribute to this Committee today. 
 We voted against the sittings motion at the end of the Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House but I concede that the Government—unusually, in my experience—has provided enough time for consideration of what is quite a short Bill. Our objection to the sittings motion was the split of time between those items to be considered on the Floor of the House and those to be considered in Standing 
 Committee. The Government's original proposal, through the usual channels, was that clauses 1 to 8 should be considered on the Floor of the House. There is a strong argument for considering all of part 1 on the Floor of the House, as it deals with constitutional issues. The Minister rightly acknowledged the importance of considering matters of first-order constitutional significance on the Floor of the House. However, the Government made it clear that they were prepared to allow only one day for consideration on the Floor of the House. In the Opposition's view, one day was inadequate properly to consider clauses 1 to 8 and certainly inadequate to consider the whole of part 1. A rather sub-optimal agreement has been reached, allowing us to consider only clauses 1 to 4 on the Floor of the House. That undermines the principle of considering constitutional issues on the Floor of the House and less important issues in Standing Committee. 
 I am disappointed that we were not able to have two full days in the House during which we might have considered all the issues of constitutional significance. We will have to do our best in Committee to consider such issues in the latter part of part 1 of the Bill. We are suffering from a handicap, because the Committee will discuss matters that flow from clauses 1 to 4. While we may predict that the Government will carry the day on those clauses and that they will resist all amendments, we will, of course, be working somewhat in the dark. It is unusual to have to deal with clauses that give the pith to the Bill after we have dealt with the rest. 
 That also presents a practical challenge in terms of the Committee's deliberations, Mr. Butterfill, on which you ruled informally during the relevant sittings of the Programming Sub-Committee. Some of the amendments that will be tabled will effectively be consequential on substantive amendments that will not be considered until the Bill is discussed in the House on 18 December. I suspect that we will have to digress from the strict remit of the Committee into some of the areas that will be covered by amendments tabled in the House. No doubt, Mr. Butterfill, you will rule on the matter as it arises.

John Butterfill: Order. I shall, of course, consider each case on its merit at the time.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. It is an innovation for a Committee to have to work in such a way. Finance Bill Committees are, of course, familiar with that way of working, but the crossover is less evident here. It will be a testing challenge for the Chairman and Committee members to have proper, constructive debates, in which the substantive issues are considered, without straying from the rules of order.
 I shall, if I may, Mr. Butterfill, step back for just a moment to consider the principle of the establishment of elected regional assemblies, which the Minister mentioned. As he said, the Opposition are opposed to the Government's proposal for the establishment of 
 elected regional assemblies. We do not think that that addresses what I might call the English question and it does not provide a solution for all the English regions. The Government's proposal masquerades as an all-England solution. There is, however, a widespread consensus that it meets the concerns of some regions, but not the issues that need to be addressed in others in the wake of the national devolution settlements and the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. 
 The Opposition recognise the genuine aspirations, particularly of those regions that are furthest away from London, for some counterweight to what is regarded as a London-centred system of government. I would not, however, like the Minister to paint us as people who sit in the Westminster village with no sense of the concerns that are felt in the north-east, in particular, about the distance of the existing Governmental structure. No doubt, I will also be told about such concerns in the south-west. We have doubts about what is being proposed, about its effectiveness and about many of the specific claims that are made by the Government.

Kevan Jones: If the hon. Gentleman says that the Bill meets the requirements of certain regions, will he name them? Is the north-east one of those regions? If it is, does he disagree fundamentally with the position that was taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is vehemently opposed to a regional assembly for the north-east?

Philip Hammond: It appears that there is a body of opinion in the north-east region that is in favour of regional assemblies—it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I am not at this stage going to predict the outcome of a referendum. During our preparations for dealing with the Bill we have had input from people from the north-east that suggests that the level of support for an elected regional assembly in accordance with the model that is proposed by the Government has been exaggerated.
Several hon. Members rose—

John Butterfill: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will not be tempted into detailing a catalogue of which regions may or may not be enthusiastic. That is not in accordance with what we are debating.

Philip Hammond: That is absolutely right. If the Bill is passed in its current form, we will ultimately see the mood in different regions.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman said that his party recognises that there are various aspirations in several regions. Will he tell the Committee how his party intends to respond to those aspirations? Does he intend to give the Committee an alternative approach to the approach that lies behind the Bill?

Philip Hammond: I suspect that you, Mr. Butterfill, would not encourage me to set out an Opposition policy for the substantive reorganisation of local government to provide genuine community government throughout England following the devolution settlement with Scotland and Wales.
 One of the Government's principle claims on the proposed regional assembly system is that it would encourage economic development of the regions and create a better balanced economy in England. We think that that case is unproven. The Government have not produced evidence that the creation of an additional tier of elected government, with the additional bureaucracy that would go with it, would drive economic growth in the regions. My intuition is that more government and more bureaucracy seldom demonstrate the ability to fuel economic growth. I am not alone in holding that view. The Deputy Prime Minister—

John Butterfill: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that consideration of this motion must finish by 11 o'clock? Other hon. Members might wish to speak so we do not have a great deal of time. I hope that he will not be tempted to go too far down the road on which he has embarked.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I had not realised that the debate was time limited.
 On 20 November, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that one of my hon. Friends 
''must have been asleep for months, during which time the CBI and other representatives of industry have made it clear that they are supportive of the proposals.''—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 630.]
 I hope that the Minister will clarify that because it was a gross misrepresentation of the Confederation of British Industry's position. The CBI's director general set out its position more appropriately when he spoke at the Labour party conference. He said: 
''we don't think that elected Regional Assemblies are going to offer the solution to this problem. We don't believe''—

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are going very wide of the motion. I have been tolerant so far, but my patience is becoming exhausted rapidly. The hon. Gentleman should return to the subject for debate.

Philip Hammond: I regret that I was misled by the tone of the interventions.
 We will not debate—other than briefly in this forum—the substantive issue of whether elected regional assemblies are good or bad. We will examine the provisions for referendums that are in the Bill. We are worried about the principle of pre-legislative referendums because people will be voting for a pig in a poke. We are concerned about the discretionary nature of the proposals in the Bill. There are no thresholds and the Government are not committed to act one way or another after a referendum. We are worried about the level of ministerial discretion in the interpretation of legislation such as the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We are worried about the proposed perpetual jeopardy in which local authorities will be placed if a referendum is held and there is a no vote. We are concerned about the impact on local government. 
 We will seek to engage in a constructive debate on those issues and we will, hopefully, persuade the Government by the force of several arguments that are put forward not only by the Opposition in Parliament 
 but by significant stakeholders outside Parliament, especially those in local government. 
 We will table—we have tabled—a significant number of amendments, many of which will be probing amendments. Sometimes, we will table mutually incompatible amendments—[Laughter.] I see nothing wrong with doing that to explore with the Minister different solutions to what are seen as imperfections in the Bill. As I know that Governments are always loth to accept Opposition amendments, ours will sometimes be framed in terms that will allow the Government to reject the amendment but accept the principle behind it. Perhaps, the Government will correct the defect that has been identified later in the passage of the Bill. 
 We shall seek to be constructive at all times. We are confident that we can win the substantive arguments if the referendums that are to be held are set up on a fair and equitable basis. That will be our objective during the consideration of the Bill. The substantive argument can then be held in the country, not in this Committee.

Edward Davey: It is a real privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Butterfill. I have had the good fortune to do so on more than one Finance Bill Standing Committee and I have learned an awful lot from you. In those days—I think it was the Finance Bills in 1997 and 1998—I had a lot to learn. I probably still have a lot to learn, as I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree. I look forward to learning a few more lessons from you, Mr. Butterfill, and I hope that I will not stray out of order too often. We also look forward to the chairmanship of your colleague, Mr. Cran.

John Butterfill: Mr. Benton.

Edward Davey: The name must have been changed.
 It is also a privilege to sit on the Committee with the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I debated with him at length in the Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, which went on for three months. I hope that this Committee will not last for three months; from the programme motion, it does not look as though it will. We had some lively and, at times, heated debates. Liberal Democrat Members made various predictions about what would happen, particularly with regard to London Underground. I will not go down that road; suffice it to say that the Minister's predictions were not proved correct and ours were. 
 On the programme resolution, I agree with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that it would have been better to have had two days for discussion on the Floor of the House, not least because many hon. Members on both sides of the House have valuable contributions to make to the Bill. That includes some of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) comes to mind in particular. There are Cornish dimensions to the issue, of which I know that you are aware, Mr. Butterfill. However, the programme resolution is before us and I am short of time, so I shall not elaborate on that point. 
 I should like to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It seems as though the Conservative party is already running up the white flag. We hear that the Conservatives now recognise regional aspirations and that are going to table mutually incompatible amendments and amendments designed to be rejected. If that is not a white flag, I do not know what is. However, it is welcome because we Liberal Democrat Members disagree with Conservative Members in their opposition to the principle behind the Bill. 
 The Minister was right. The Liberal Democrats support the concept of regional democracy and are against the Conservatives' idea of leaving regional government in place but not making it properly accountable to the people in the region that it serves. We will support the principle behind the Bill, but we have many concerns about it and will be tabling amendments. I refer hon. Members to my speech on Second Reading, but I shall not rehearse those arguments now. I hope that you will be able to call one other hon. Member, Mr. Butterfill. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. I regret that so few hon. Members have had the opportunity to speak on the programme resolution. We were not aware that debate on it was limited to half an hour. I was just reflecting with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on how it was customary—

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have been aware of that fact. It is in the Standing Orders of the House.

Desmond Swayne: I was reflecting on how, in the past, it would have been appropriate to spend the first three sittings discussing the programme resolution, and how regrettable it was that that has passed.

John Butterfill: I am not responsible for the Standing Orders of the House.
 Before we move on, I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with this Bill, copies of which are available in the Committee Room. I also remind Committee members that adequate notice of amendments must be given. My co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including those that we might reach during this afternoon's sitting.

Clause 5 - Referendums: frequency

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
Clause 5, page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (1) and (2).

John Butterfill: With this we may consider the following:
 Amendment No. 30, in 
Clause 5, page 3, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(aa) at least fifty per cent. of persons eligible to vote in such a referendum voted, and'.
 Amendment No. 40, in 
Clause 5, in page 3, line 15, leave out from first 'the' to third 'the' and insert 'period of 20 years has elapsed from'.
 Amendment No. 2, in 
Clause 5, page 3, line 15, leave out 'five' and insert 'twenty'.
 Amendment No. 24, in 
Clause 5, page 3, line 15, leave out 'five' and insert 'six'.

Philip Hammond: I listened with interest to the remarks about the amendments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). If I were the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I would be cautious about talking about mutually contradictory amendments: at least I have expressed the intention of tabling them, whereas I suspect that the Liberal Democrats might, in their usual way, table them inadvertently.
 I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading. He warned the Government that he would table many amendments. So far, there have only been three of them. [Hon. Members: ''Four.''] We wait with bated breath for more of them. 
 Amendment No. 1 is the type of amendment that I referred to earlier: it is dependent upon other amendments that will not be substantively debated in this place. It seeks to excise subsections (1) and (2) from clause 5, which would mean that the clause dealt only with the jurisdiction and responsibility of the chief counting officer. It would not make any sense for that to stand on its own. 
 Amendment No. 1 is intended to be consequential on amendment No. 13: that is its number in the list of amendments that are to be considered on the Floor of the House. That list's order of numbering is different from the list of amendments that are to be considered by the Committee. One of the technical difficulties facing us is that those amendments are not available in the Committee Room today; I believe that that is the case. 
 Amendment No. 13 seeks to write a provision into clause 1, the result of which would be that once a referendum had been held in a region, the matter would be settled, and a further referendum could not be held. Other amendments that we have tabled to clause 1 propose that there should be a single England-wide referendum to establish the strength of favourable sentiment for elected regional assemblies in the entire country: I have explained that to put the matter in context. That does not imply that there must be a single decision about regional assemblies that applies to every region.

Jim Knight: I want the hon. Gentleman to explain how that would work. Is he suggesting that there would be a referendum on the principle of regional assemblies in the whole of England and that if that were successful, if individual regions wanted to go for a regional assembly, second referendums would be held region by region? Would that not be a waste of everyone's time?

Philip Hammond: That would be a waste of everyone's time, but that is not what is being suggested. If the Government believe in elected regional assemblies but accept that there may be a
 variable appetite for them across the country, they should have the courage of their convictions: they should hold a referendum across England on a single day, so that each region gives its verdict on the Government's proposition on the same day. That would have several practical attractions, and one practical drawback, which the Minister will probably tell us about. One of the attractions would be that if there were a nationwide campaign and referendum day, it would be much easier for people on both sides of the argument to mobilise public opinion and interest. There is a practical issue to be addressed. The Government have got themselves into a difficult position over local government reorganisation in the context of elected regional assemblies, and the boundary committee has its work cut out in putting before the electorate detailed information about the proposed local government boundary changes in each region before any referendums take place.

Kevan Jones: Does not the amendment demonstrate that the Conservatives do not understand that notion of regionalism? Under what is being proposed, would it not be possible for the large population in London and the south-east to outvote regions such as the north-east, where, as has already been said, there is a groundswell of opinion in favour of regional assemblies? Once again, London and the south-east would dominate the national agenda.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman would be right if I were proposing that the decision would be a national one. However, I am proposing that the regional referendums should be held on the same day. The results would not be binding: it would be entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to proceed further. Nothing in the Bill prevents him from initiating the establishment of an elected regional assembly in a region that had voted against having one, just as nothing requires him to establish an assembly in a region that has voted for one.
 Ministers are feeling the pulse of the nation, region by region. Although regional assemblies have a primarily regional dimension and constituency of interest, a wider issue concerns the settlement of the English constitution. The challenge for the Government—

John Butterfill: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if we continue down this route there is a danger that we will start debating clause 1, which will be debated on the Floor of the House. We are debating a fairly narrow issue relating to the frequency of referendums. I appreciate the difficulty for the hon. Gentleman in having to explain how his amendments to clause 5 may interact with clause 1, but I do not intend a debate on clause 1 to be conducted in this Committee.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. As you say, I am in some difficulty because, clearly, amendment No. 1 does not stand alone. I will try to focus narrowly on the change that amendment No. 13 would make to clause 1. The amendment would deal with the question of frequency of referendums by ruling out a further referendum under the Bill. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Government
 from introducing another Bill should they feel that the issue needs to be tested again. Amendment No. 1 would delete the provisions in clause 5 that deal with repetitive referendums.

Lawrie Quinn: I suspect that I will get into trouble by asking this question, and I will obviously be guided by the occupant of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman talked about the prospect of the whole of England having to have a referendum. However, the Greater London Assembly has already been established, so is there not a contradiction inherent within his argument? Surely, those who are resident in the London area would not be included.

John Butterfill: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue. That point is not within the terms of clause 5. It may be appropriate when we debate clause 1 on the Floor of the House, but not at Committee stage.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. To put the matter finally to bed, the Government will, in time—but not now—have to show how they will deal with variable solutions in different parts of the country, and how that will be a stable settlement. Some of the amendments address that point, but we will discuss them when the House debates clause 1.
 It is necessary for me to deal with amendment No. 13, and to touch on the other amendments that we will table to clause 1, in order to deal with a cascade of Opposition preferences. We would prefer a single referendum and a single jeopardy, but in order to make the Committee work we must assume that the Government will resist such proposals when we debate clause 1. Some of our noble Friends in the other place may take a different view and the Government have on several occasions, for reasons unfathomable to me, shown themselves to be more susceptible to the persuasive arguments of our unelected colleagues in the other place than those of elected colleagues in this place, but we must assume that the Government will reject those substantive changes to clause 1. We must address the issue with which clause 5 primarily deals, which is the frequency of repeat referendums where a referendum has been held in a region and a no result has been achieved. 
 I said earlier that we were confident of being able to win the substantive argument on a fair and level playing field. However, the Government are seeking to create a one-way only ratchet. They will effectively be able to propose and hold a referendum, lose it, and hold another five years later. They can go on doing that for ever. They need only get a 50.1 per cent. yes vote once, and the system can then be set in stone for ever. The Government are not proposing any means of reversing that decision. That seems, on a purely common-sense basis, to be a most unsatisfactory arrangement. It is inequitable in that it creates a one-way ratchet. Without wanting to stray to far, we address that issue in new clause 1, which will be considered later by the Committee. New clause 1 would create a mechanism for citizen-initiated recall of the yes decision if it became obvious that the regional assembly was not delivering the goods, and if there were a groundswell of opinion to reverse that decision. 
 There are some significant practical implications of hanging a sword of Damocles over local government. The Government have linked local government organisation with the question of elected regional assemblies. To allow the question of elected regional assemblies to remain effectively perpetually open—even in a region that has voted once, twice or perhaps three times against it—is to leave the sword of Damocles hanging over the structure of local government. 
 Yesterday, I attended a conference of the Local Government Association, eagerly expecting to hear the Minister opining on those matters. Unfortunately, the Minister was delayed, and in order to avoid having to walk out in the middle of his speech, I walked out before he started. If he had been there a little earlier, he would have heard, in a panel discussion that was supposed to reflect on his speech but instead had to anticipate it, elected councillors of all parties expressing concern about the uncertainty that this agenda presents to local government. 
 I am talking not about the regional assembly part of the agenda, because that does not impact directly on local government, but about the consequent reforms of local government. We have already heard anecdotal evidence that local authorities in the north-east would find it difficult to recruit and retain staff if reorganisation were in the offing. As the Minister knows, many people in local government are thoroughly fed up with reorganisation. The prospect of recurrent referendums on a five-year cycle would be hugely debilitating to the primary agenda of local government—the delivery of improved services to the people of this country.

Nick Raynsford: I take the hon. Gentleman's points about the sword of Damocles and repeated referendums being disruptive. Does he accept that, if amendment No. 1 were passed but were not accompanied by the associated clause 1 amendment that we may debate later, local government and the regions would be exposed to repeated referendums and reorganisation without limit?

Philip Hammond: The Minister is right, but I hope that he will not use the bizarre split in the way in which we are considering this Bill to make a trite debating point. Of course amendment No. 1 does not stand alone. Of course I would not want amendment No. 1 to be passed by this Committee and amendment No. 13 to be rejected by the Committee of the whole House—that would make the Bill worse than it is now. However, I hope that that will not be the Minister's argument against amendment No. 1. He will have to have a better argument; otherwise, the deliberations of this Committee will be rendered completely useless and irrelevant by the Government's decision on how the Bill was to be handled.

Lawrie Quinn: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the amendments in his first group are probing amendments? If so, does that mean that he has not
 thought through the consequences should the Committee accept his amendments?

Philip Hammond: No, I am not saying that. Part of this Bill is to be considered on the Floor of the House—after this Committee has completed much of its deliberation. Therefore, if hon. Members of any party wish to change the Bill in a way that results in consequent amendments throughout the Bill, they will have no choice but to table their amendments as a group. In the course of normal Committee consideration, such amendments would be considered as a group. However, this Committee is in the bizarre position of having to consider the consequential amendments without being able to go into the substantive amendments in any detail.
 The Minister is right to say that agreeing to amendment No. 1 without agreeing to amendment No. 13 would make the Bill significantly worse than it is. I would not advocate such a course of action at all and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is not my purpose in raising these issues.

John Butterfill: Order. It may be useful to hon. Members if I point out that, if the order in which we are discussing the Bill results in amendments that create inconsistencies, those inconsistencies can always be remedied on Report.

Philip Hammond: I suspect that I will not seek to press amendment No. 1. However, we will seek to have a substantive debate on the Floor of the House on amendment No. 13. As you have suggested, Mr. Butterfill, things could be tidied up later.
 I do not intend to speak to amendment No. 30, which does not stand alone and was intended to be part of a strategy that straddled the two parts of the consideration of this Bill. It will be complex and difficult to debate amendment No. 30 in that context, so I will pass straight to amendment No. 40. 
 In amendment No. 40, we propose that the five-year period should become a 20-year period—for all the reasons that I have outlined over the past few minutes. I accept that 20 years may sound like a long time.

Edward Davey: It is.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a long time. However, his party's idea of an earth-shattering amendment to the Government's five-year referendum rerun proposal is to make it six years.

Edward Davey: It is a probing amendment.

Philip Hammond: So is the 20-year proposal. Even if the Government are persuaded that there is some merit in the argument, I know from experience that they are unlikely to adopt the Opposition's amendment and will look for a reason to reject it before they table one of their own at a later stage. I am optimistic that, when the Government consider five-year repeat referendums, hear the views of people in local government and take such soundings as I suspect that they do in the other place, they may want to review the five-year limit, which will result in something between what the hon. Gentleman is proposing and what I am proposing. For the convenience of those members of the Committee who have not seen the briefing, I inform them that
 the Confederation of British Industry is suggesting that a 10-year interval between referendums would be a sensible and equitable compromise.
 We cannot have local government distracted from its core purpose of improving service delivery at local level by being perpetually under the threat of a reorganisation. That would inflict unnecessary damage on every part of England that is under two-tier local administration, assuming that a referendum—if held—produces a no vote.

Gary Streeter: To buttress my hon. Friend's important point, I draw attention to my visit to West Devon borough council on Friday. I discussed a range of issues with officers and senior councillors of that impressive and effective council. They have already held several meetings and spent a lot of time thinking about what would happen if over the next three or four years there were a referendum on regional government in the west country and the impact that that would have on their council. They have already been distracted by such issues and have spent much time discussing them. My hon. Friend is making the important point that if such a referendum had already been held and there were a likelihood of another one five years down the track, many local councils would be focusing on such matters to the detriment of their other services.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend has made his point eloquently. My worry is that a referendum may be held in a region and narrowly lost. We know the Government's agenda. They will set about campaigning and using all the means at their disposal to swing public opinion behind the proposition, with a view to holding a further referendum. We object in principle to the uneven playing field that the Government want to create. However, we shall accept that at the moment and assume that they will not yield on that point.
 Let us imagine the consequences for the delivery of local services, the recruitment of high-quality staff, the retention of local authority staff and the contracting arrangements of local authorities in that region. I shall hypothetically assume that there is a region in which 49.5 per cent. of the low number of people who participate vote for a regional assembly and 50.5 per cent. vote against it. That position highlights a serious issue. I understand that the Government have an agenda and a manifesto commitment to pursue regional devolution, but good-quality service delivery and the practical day-to-day functioning of local authorities are more important than the pursuit of a constitutional agenda.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman talked about the good-quality delivery of public services. Does he agree that there is plenty that can be achieved now by local authorities in an area or county such as Dorset, in which you and I live, Mr. Butterfill? Authorities together can contract services through public partnerships. They can achieve consistent and improved public services. There is nothing to fear from reorganisation because the contract is delivered across local authorities, and professionals who deliver the services would transfer automatically, which would be a smooth reconciliation of the problem.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's intervention started off interestingly. I agree that there is plenty for scope for local authorities of both tiers in non-unitary areas to co-operate on the basis of flexible geometry to obtain benefits of scale. We are not blind to arguments about the need for a higher tier or larger scale for several decisions and several service deliveries. There is an argument for taking some decisions over a larger geographical area than a county. There is an argument that several authorities require a larger critical mass to deliver services. We do not accept that that must lead to the imposition of regional government on the basis of the artificial division of the regions that we currently have.
 The hon. Gentleman continued to suggest that local authorities' ability to enter such arrangements and the statutory provisions that allow them to discharge several of their functions in that way mean that the threat of a boundary reorganisation would not have an impact on their ability to recruit and retain staff. That flies in the face of the view of local authorities and local authority members. 
Several hon. Members rose—

Philip Hammond: I am spoilt for choice.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that recent major reforms of the structure of local government occurred under a Conservative Government? The last Conservative Government's major reform in the north-east was the creation of unitary councils. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that our existing local government structures should be frozen in time and never examined? The two-tier system that remains in parts of the north-east such as county Durham is not working with regard to service delivery.

Philip Hammond: I do not intend to go into the substance of whether the arrangements in county Durham and Northumberland are working with regard to service delivery. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, although we will see whether you will allow me to explore it, Mr. Butterfill. He addresses the optimum structures and organisations of local government. The Conservative party's view is that that should be addressed by people who live in the affected area.
Mr. Jones rose—

Philip Hammond: Let me finish answering the last intervention before I take the next one.
 In the north-east, 68 per cent. of people live in unitary authorities. We are worried that under the structure proposed in the Bill, those people—if they all turn out to vote—can determine the compulsory unitisation of local government in Northumberland and county Durham. That is wrong, inappropriate and inequitable. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that aspects of the structure of local government must be addressed. Those are issues for local people. However, it is inappropriate that the structure of local government is addressed as an incidental fallout from the Government's programme of referendums for elected regional assemblies.

John Butterfill: Order. It is not the hon. Gentleman's fault, but the interventions that he is taking are tempting him to discuss issues that are wide of the amendment. I shall rule further interventions along that line out of order.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I shall not be tempted to take a further intervention from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).
 The issues are important and are at the heart of several concerns about the Bill. I tell the Minister quite openly that I speak as an opponent of the principle of elected regional assemblies along the lines of the Government's proposals. I sat yesterday in Local Government house—I have also sat in other meetings—listening to people who are favourably inclined toward the Government's agenda on elected regional assemblies but who are deeply worried about its impact on local government. They are worried about both the equitability of imposing region-wide changes on local government solutions, and the practical impact of that from a yes campaigner's point of view. I hope that the Minister will address those significant issues as we proceed with the Bill. 
 The purpose of the group of amendments, including Liberal Democrat amendment No. 24, is simply to raise the issue of whether, if we have to have a one-way ratchet and repeat referendums, five years is the appropriate period. Those also address whether there is a benefit in seeking to achieve the Government's stated agenda more quickly through repeat referendums in five years and whether that justifies the cost, in terms of uncertainty, that will be imposed on local government. We would prefer not to have repeat referendums at all. However, if we have to have such referendums, let them be held after a minimum interval that is long enough for local government to settle down and to get on with the business that it is there to do.

Edward Davey: There is some consensus between me and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. I agree that some amendments probe and test the Government's position, and that it would be damaging for local government to be faced with what he called the perpetual sword of Damocles: potential reform every five years. That would lead to the situation destabilising and we could not support that. The issue is whether the problem is dealt with by the amendments to clause 5, whether they probe or do otherwise, or whether it is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
 The Liberal Democrats believe that the issue of local government restructuring and reform should be uncoupled from that of regional assemblies. If we took such a substantive policy decision and if we could persuade the Government—I know that there are many Labour Members who hold this view—that local government reform should be dealt with separately and should not be part of the referendum issue at all, whether in the preamble or elsewhere, we would deal with the problem that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge rightly raised.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when new Labour first floated the policy in its 1997 manifesto, a key caveat was that regional government would happen only if the total cost to the public purse of local and regional government would not increase as a result. The Government have dropped that qualifying statement—we have not seen it for a long time—and at the same time they have introduced proposals to ensure that there are only ever a maximum of two levels of local and regional government. Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the cost of having three tiers of government in any area?

Edward Davey: I have not worked out an exact cost. To do that would probably require a number of civil servants working over a number of days and weeks. That is not to say that the public would not like to see the democratising of regional government and the various quangos in our communities and regions. I think that in the long term and with greater accountability we will get better value for money. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have taken a myopic, short-term view of some of the cost issues that are involved.

Jim Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in somewhere like Dorset, where many areas have three tiers of government—parishes, districts and counties—it is rather a lot to ask people to go to the polls for parish elections, district elections, county elections, regional elections, Westminster elections and European elections? It is, therefore, logical for the Government to seek to replace a tier of government, as is proposed in the legislation, rather than to do what he is suggesting.

John Butterfill: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will not be tempted to respond to that intervention because it is wide of the amendments that we are discussing.

Edward Davey: I was going to say that I would be happy to explain my party's position to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) outside the Committee Room. I am sure that we can come to that more substantive debate later on.
 Amendment. No. 24 is a probing amendment that has been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green).

Desmond Swayne: Where is the hon. Gentleman?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will be present this afternoon.
 The Liberal Democrats have discussed this matter in detail. We have a policy paper on it, which has been posted on our website, where it can be consulted. We came to the conclusion that five years was the right period for the frequency of future referendums. 
 On many points, we do not have a dispute with the Government. However, I am keen to understand the Government's reasoning. When we were discussing this issue, it became clear that two things have to be weighed up when deciding how frequent the referendums should be. It would be wrong, destabilising and expensive if they were held every two, three or four years; a minimum period must be 
 allowed to elapse between referendums. The key question is: should there be a much longer delay, such as 10 years, as the CBI proposed, or 20 years, as is stated in the probing amendments of several Tory Members? That lengthy a period could put inflexibility into the system and deny choice, because electors can change their minds. They change their minds at council and parliamentary elections, and they vote for different things at different times. The Committee must make a difficult judgment: it must strike the right balance between preventing too frequent referendums—with all the costs that that would involve—and allowing flexibility if the voters change their views.

Gary Streeter: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. He is right to make the point that the electorate may change their mind. Does that mean that, if an electorate in a region were to vote by a small majority for regional government, he would support having a second look at that decision later—after perhaps five or 10 years?

Edward Davey: I would not support that.

Gary Streeter: Why not?

Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman were to wait for a second before intervening, I would explain why not . My party believes in significant constitutional reform, which should be seen as a package. We have long argued for that. We would approach this entire matter very differently, by offering the people a package of constitutional reforms. That would include the option of regional government, where it was wanted, but it would be enshrined in a constitution. I would be happy to explain that further, but I can see that you, Mr. Butterfill, are already getting worried that I might be out of order. I am concerned that amendments Nos. 40 and 2 might prevent choice for the electorates in the regions.
 I will comment only briefly on the other amendments, as it is clear that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not going to press them to a Division. I am glad that he will not press amendment No. 1 to a Division. He was concerned about the fact that there was a one-way ratchet—perhaps that concern lies behind the last intervention by the hon. Member for South-West Devon. If a party believes in constitutional reform, the ratchet can only work one way. That is a policy decision. 
 It is reasonable to draw a distinction between forcing young people and giving them a choice. We agree with the Government's policies that there should be regional devolution and that it should not be enforced. The idea of a one-way ratchet is not quite as appalling as some hon. Gentlemen are trying to suggest, because the voters will not have to vote in favour of it.

Desmond Swayne: It is possible for voters to change their minds. The hon. Gentleman appears to be proposing the extraordinary theory that only Governments and political parties can have such policies, and that the option to initiate a movement of that sort is not available to the people themselves.

Edward Davey: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the notion of constitutional reform. With regard to devolution and other reforms, this House has taken major decisions to change our constitution—our way of doing things—and they have become settled. I would like to introduce those constitutional reforms slightly differently from the way in which the Government have introduced them—including the one before us—by incorporating them in a full written constitution. It would be possible to amend that written constitution in a similar way to how the constitution of the United States of America can be amended.

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of this amendment. I wish him to confine his remarks to the amendment, and other hon. Members to refrain from tempting him down different routes.

Edward Davey: I will not be tempted again.
 I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge skirted over amendment No. 30. It is quite a bizarre idea to have a threshold not on the result, but on a future referendum. It stands in direct contrast to amendments that he and his hon. Friends tabled to other clauses, particularly amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 28, under which they wish us to include abstentions when counting who is participating. It seems odd that the hon. Gentleman talks about abstentions in some amendments and sets thresholds—which, presumably, would not include abstainers—in others.

Philip Hammond: Without going into detail, the hon. Gentleman is making an obvious mistake. If there were a threshold, an abstention would become relevant, and could be an active determinant of the outcome. We have not abandoned the concept of thresholds—we will come back to it in relation to part 1—but I felt that it would be difficult to put across such a concept in relation to clause 5 unless it could be seen to run through the Bill. We have some difficulties because of the structure of the Committee.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is on difficult ground. To think that abstentions are a positive part of the democratic process in one place and to ignore them in another seems to be a contradiction. It will be for others reading the debate to decide between the hon. Gentleman's thinking and ours. If a threshold were a good idea—I do not think that it is—50 per cent. would be an extraordinarily high level at which to set it. A threshold has not been used in referendums since 1997, and was not used for the overall devolution movements. As I understand it, it has not been used with respect to determining future referendums; it would be under amendment No. 30.

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is very touchy today, so I am happy to give way to him.

Philip Hammond: I am not very touchy at all. I am just relaxing into the mood of the Committee.
 The hon. Gentleman objects to the inclusion of a threshold provision. The outcome of the referendum is only advisory. It does not have binding force. What would be the hon. Gentleman's advice to the Minister 
 on interpreting a referendum decision if the turnout were only 12 or 15 per cent., and 51 per cent. of that turnout voted yes? Would the hon. Gentleman recommend that the Minister seized upon that and proceeded? Whether or not there is a formal threshold, does the hon. Gentleman believe that, morally, there is some kind of a threshold, and that some level of participation is needed to give legitimacy to the outcome?

Edward Davey: First, I would question the Minister's original decision to go ahead and recommend a referendum because, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows, under clause 1 the Minister has to find out whether there is any interest in a referendum. If there were such a low turnout, the Minister would have made an incorrect decision originally, so the hon. Gentleman's point is dealt with in clause 1.
 I have dealt with the amendments to the extent that I wish to. I hope that the Minister will explain exactly why the Government came to the final decision that five years should be the cut-off point.

Gary Streeter: I apologise for coming late to the Committee this morning. I was initiating a debate on carers in another Room and I am now here to discuss something about which most people do not care. I hope that you appreciate the clever play on words, Mr. Butterfill. [Laughter.] Perhaps I should sit down now.
 On the question of when a second referendum could be triggered in a region after the first had been rejected, my view is that five years is too short. I say that for a number of reasons. First, I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge skilfully makes about the general uncertainty that hangs around, post-referendum. For example, in Plymouth, there was a referendum quite recently on whether we should have a directly elected mayor. We know that we cannot have another referendum for five years. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) may remember when the referendum was—I cannot—but I believe that it was about a year ago. 
 However, people are already talking about whether we should have a directly elected mayor and perhaps thinking about campaigning for one in the run-up to a future election. That is happening only one year after a referendum in which the proposal was conclusively defeated. Uncertainty flows and people begin to spend time on the matter. Preparing for a future referendum would be a distraction for local government officers. 
 Where will the level of interest that the Deputy Prime Minister will assess come from? Certainly, in a region such as the west country, it will not come from ordinary people. Almost exclusively, indications for a desire for regional government will come from local government; political parties and local government officers. If we agreed that another referendum could be called after five years, people who should be getting on with delivering local services in local government will 
 be distracted by campaigning. That would be unhelpful.

Philip Hammond: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is not only campaigning for a future referendum that would be a distraction? The campaigning and jockeying for position over the potential reorganisation of local government boundaries will really debilitate local government.

Gary Streeter: With his usual foresight, my hon. Friend has anticipated my next point because he is right. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) said that officers would work together and that there would be a natural transition from one state of local government to another, but that is not what would happen. I invite Members of the Committee who have sat by their telephones on reshuffle day—not that I have ever done so, obviously—to ask themselves about the implications of such uncertainty. In such circumstances, people worry about their careers or jobs. We are all human beings.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, if there is a prospect of a referendum or of local government reorganisation, it would be the most natural thing in the world for the treasurer of a district council and the treasurer of a county council to wonder who will get the regional job.

Brian White: As someone who experienced local government reorganisations in the mid-1990s, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the other side of the story. People were looking forward to the opportunities that arose from local government reorganisation. A new sense of dynamism came into local government, allowing people to develop new ideas and ways of working.

Gary Streeter: I accept that point. I am not saying that all reform of local government is bad or that unitary authorities are bad. I believe in single-tier local government; it is more effective than our current structures in some parts of the country. I say what I believe, Mr. Butterfill; you would expect nothing less from me. However, whether people are looking forward to new opportunities and aspiring to put long-held beliefs into practice, or are worried about the uncertainty, jockeying for position and campaigning to get the number one or number two job, the level of uncertainty will come around all too quickly. Local government can do without that.
 Although the Bill does not make it clear, the decision to hold another referendum would be made, presumably, by the Deputy Prime Minister and his team. So the Deputy Prime Minister has to take an interest in future possible referendums as well as the first set. That means that, in the run-up to the five-year period, people concerned about the issue will be investing time, effort and energy in campaigning to catch the Deputy Prime Minister's eye to demonstrate the level of interest. The gap between referendums will not be five years; it is more likely to be four years, because I expect that people will campaign for 12 months to catch the eye of the Deputy Prime Minister. Four years between referendums is far too short. 
 We have heard that the CBI is suggesting that 10 years is the right interval. I know that the Government do not listen to the CBI these days; they prefer instead to load yet more taxes and regulations on successful wealth-creators, which is shocking and undesirable. The penny is beginning to drop in the business community left, right and centre. However, this is an issue on which the Government would be well advised to listen to the CBI. An interval of 10 years would give a level of certainty and would enable things to settle down so that everyone knew where they stood.

Kevan Jones: Why does the Conservative party not listen to the CBI, which is suggesting 10 years?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend has already explained that our amendments are probing amendments to flush out the Government's thinking.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend a steer as to the practical answer to the question. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asserted on Second Reading how assiduous his party would be in tabling amendments. Notwithstanding that, the Conservative party tabled a large number of its amendments immediately after Second Reading and before we received the briefing from the CBI.

Gary Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I commend him on the speed with which those amendments were tabled. I ask the hon. Member for North Durham whether, when the firefighters requested a salary increase of 40 per cent., they expected to get it.
 It is time for the Government to listen to business. I have not met a single business person in my constituency or in my region who is in favour of regional government. Business people would certainly not be in favour of a regional Government knocking on their door every five years because of a threatened referendum, with all the uncertainty and officer time that that would represent. 
 Finally, I want to touch on new clause 1. I do not think that any Members of Parliament from Wales are here today, but I wonder whether the people of Wales, if given a second stab at having a National Assembly for Wales, would—

John Butterfill: Order. New clause 1 is no longer in this group of amendments. I would prefer it if the hon. Gentleman did not deal with it at this stage.

Gary Streeter: I am sorry. I arrived late and therefore have inappropriate information in front of me, for which I apologise. I will not make that point, at this time.
 I have enormous respect for the Minister's ability and for his grip on his job. He knows more about local government than almost anyone else in the country. He therefore knows only too well how local government works and he knows the uncertainty that the possibility of rolling referendums on a five-year cycle would create. I urge him to listen to these arguments and, if he feels it appropriate, to table amendments to his own legislation.

Desmond Swayne: On amendment No. 40, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for North Durham have pointed out that the CBI has argued for a 10-year
 period during which a second referendum could not be held. We have heard powerful arguments about the disruption to local services. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton suggested that local government reform could be uncoupled from the creation of regional assemblies, but the hon. Member for South Dorset gave the lie to that. I do not believe that it will be quite so easy to separate the organisation of local government from the addition of a new tier of government. I suspect that that will have a profound effect.
 Let us leave that aside. Just consider the effect on the morale—if one may call it that—of the whole democratic process if, on the night of the referendum result, the losing party announced there and then, ''The campaign for the next referendum in five years begins now, and we are going to get the right result next time.'' I cannot think of anything that would undermine confidence in local democracy, and democracy in general, more than that corrosive process.

Lawrie Quinn: Earlier, I said that the Leader of the Opposition had stated clearly that his party's policy was to abolish any regional assemblies that were set up following the process. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing against that, because such uncertainty would undermine the democratic process that he is celebrating?

Desmond Swayne: There is a clear difference of principle between what a political party offers in its programme at a general election and a single-issue referendum. If a decision is settled at a single-issue referendum, repeating the same referendum ad infinitum within too short a period is different from a political party making a decision on its programme at a general election. The matters are quite distinct, although the hon. Gentleman might not agree.
 I am not so concerned about the limit of 10 years that the CBI suggested. I think that our amendment suggesting a limit of 20 years is about right. That represents a generation.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the CBI?

Desmond Swayne: I do in this case. I think that the period should be a generation. I pray in aid two referendums that have been held during the past generation of so. It is pertinent to do that and to remind the Committee of the 1975 referendum on the European Union, especially because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) was only three at the time. I have watched his meteoric and well deserved rise, which contrasts sharply with ours.
 I recall campaigning for a no vote in 1975 referendum. When the issue was settled, I did not believe for a moment that it was settled for all time. I do not espouse the extraordinary constitutional argument made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton when he opposed the amendment. He seemed to suggest some form of African democracy on constitutional issues; one man, one vote, once. On the night of the 1975 referendum, I believed that a generation would pass before the issue could be 
 revisited, but I always thought that the right to revisit it had to be available to a future generation. Nothing can last for all time.

Jim Knight: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for a referendum so that we can get out of the European Union?

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not respond to that question.

Desmond Swayne: I will be making no such argument. I do not believe that the time to reconsider that question, if it is to be reconsidered in the foreseeable future, has arisen.
 Let me tempt Labour Members with the experience of the first devolution referendum in Scotland, which, of course, was held when the Under-Secretary was six. That referendum led to a sea change of opinion in Scotland within a generation. As a consequence of the long gestation of the next referendum, the result was much healthier. If devolution in Scotland had gone ahead on the basis of the result in 1978, it would have lacked legitimacy because an entire region voted against it. As a consequence of the defeat, the settled will of the Scottish people emerged over a generation, which was the right time period in which that could occur. I suspect that if a further referendum had been held within five years, it would have had an even lower turnout than that in 1979.

Lawrie Quinn: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to acknowledge and put on record the great contribution that the Conservative Government made to the sea change of opinion to ensure a move away from a centralised to a devolved Administration?

Desmond Swayne: I am sure that you would not allow me to put any such thing on the record, Mr. Butterfill.
 I find aspects of the debate intriguing. I can understand the argument for five years. I disagree with it, but at least it has some logic; that time period is equivalent to a parliamentary term within which an election must be held, although it has become habit to have our elections within four years. I understand and agree with our argument for a period of generational change of 20 years. However, I find the six-year period extraordinary. What would happen in year six that would change the situation? I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was going to enlighten us on that, but he has disappointed me.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but will he share his thoughts on the CBI position of 10 years?

Desmond Swayne: The CBI position of 10 years is based on its technical considerations on disruption and stability. My position is based on political considerations, such as the changing mood of the people and the gestation period for movements. We are talking about movements for constitutional change, which involve completely different arguments; I have adhered to one. I do not say that the CBI's argument is not coherent in terms of the
 factors that it took into account. However, I hope that I have made it clear that I have considered a different issue.
 I shall address amendment No. 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge passed over briefly because he believes, rightly, that we shall have to debate the issue another time and that it might not be appropriate to rehearse it now, given the way in which the Committee stage has been structured. However, I am afraid that a can of worms was opened by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. There is a further reason why I am reluctant to address the issue because I recall precisely the first Scottish referendum, for which a threshold was set. My involvement with the referendum was so intimate that I was accused of abusing the threshold by stuffing the electoral register to make it more difficult for a yes vote of 40 per cent. to be secured. As a result, I found myself in front of the sheriff at Cupar court. The Committee will be relieved to hear that the sheriff took the view that he was considering a test case and that I was not to blame at all for what happened. A promising political career was not blighted at its outset by a conviction for gerrymandering. 
 A threshold is a means by which the proponents of a change are required to raise their game and genuinely enthuse the electorate about their proposals. A reluctance to put such a threshold in place raises questions about other parts of the Bill that relate to the Secretary of State's requirement to take into account the support for proposals for regional government. If we are reluctant to say that even a particular proportion of the electorate can be induced to vote on the proposals, we have clearly judged wrongly the original mood of the electorate. The salutary effect of having failed to meet the threshold in the first Scottish referendum, although a majority voted for the constitutional changes, had an electric effect in stimulating the movement to bring about the settled will of the Scottish people at the second referendum. What would have passed for devolution on the first referendum, had that succeeded, would have lacked legitimacy. The settled will of the people was ultimately for a much greater measure of devolution than was offered at that time.

Jim Knight: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's arguments for the generational time limit and the threshold. If his party succeeded in amending the Bill so that the ratchet could be reversed and a referendum held to reverse the decision that was made at a previous referendum, would he support the generational time limit of 20 years and the threshold for such a change?

Desmond Swayne: I am sure that we will consider that when we come to new clause 1. For the moment, however, I have coherently made the points that I wish to make.

Adrian Flook: I rise to speak to amendment No. 40, which would correct the five-year period. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he decided on the five-year period as the best solution.
 I hope that the Committee will not mind if I am somewhat parochial in bringing to its attention what 
 could happen in my constituency. There are two local authorities based in Taunton; Taunton Deane borough council, which is elected every four years on an all-out basis, and Somerset county council. Taunton has been the county town for Somerset since the mid-1930s. In the mid-1990s, the Banham commission considered whether to amalgamate those bodies and create a unitary authority throughout Somerset. Just seven years ago, that debate created much disquiet across the political divide. 
 If the Secretary of State agreed to a referendum in which the local voted was against, in five years there could be another referendum on regional government for the south-west. The rolling five-year programme would have implications for Taunton. Taunton Deane borough council might have to merge with Sedgemoor district council at Bridgwater and West Somerset district council; such a merger would not go down very well. If regional government is agreed on, there would also be an impact on jobs. Would a regional assembly be based in Bristol or Exeter or even, as some people naively think, Taunton?

Desmond Swayne: Would they want it?

Adrian Flook: We are not really sure whether the Liberal Democrats in Somerset prefer a five, six, 10 or 20-year period. We have a particular problem in Taunton because of the all-out nature of the local elections for the district and county councils.

Lawrie Quinn: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be building up to the idea that local people should be consulted about such restructuring and that their views should be taken into account. The last Conservative Government imposed a result on my county of North Yorkshire, rather than using the referendum process. Does not that contradict his argument?

Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman might wish to write a speech for me, but I would not want to give it. Before he intervened, I was building up to say that we would have an election in 2003, having had one in Taunton Deane in 1999, and we would be looking forward to one in 2005. If we were to have a referendum on a south-west regional assembly in—let us say—2004, we would be looking forward to county councils having to change. If that were not the case, we would be looking ahead to 2007, when Taunton Deane borough council would have elections. That would create a problem. Who would know whether people would be working for Taunton Deane borough council, a unitary authority or a regional authority? One would hope that it would be up to the electorate as a whole to decide that, rather than up to those who work there.

Lawrie Quinn: I must press the hon. Gentleman on this point. Does he accept that local people should have a say in all of these matters?

Adrian Flook: Whether they should have a say is a substantive element of the debate. I thought we were discussing whether the period of time should be five years or the 20 years that my party supports. I shall skip answering that intervention for fear of upsetting you, Mr. Butterfill, by not sticking to the amendment.
 The impact of having a five-year rolling programme would dramatically upset matters such as schooling and infrastructure planning. Taunton is growing, and—needless to say—there is already insufficient infrastructure for the increasing size of the place. If the question of whether we were going to have regional government were to hang over my constituents, there would be a great impact on planning for the infrastructure that we need. If there have to be more houses in the area, we will ask for a sizeable increase in spending for our hospital. We will also be wondering whether schooling would have to change; would the people who work for the local authorities be working for them in Bristol or Exeter, or in Taunton, still? All of this would be disruptive to large areas of our lives. 
 Elsewhere, the Government make an attempt to be joined up by saying that people should be able to work close to where they live, so that it is unnecessary for them to commute up and down the M5, as appears to be the case at present. This proposal would only add to that. I now wish to conclude my remarks on whether we should have a generational, 20-year difference.

Jim Knight: So the hon. Gentleman supports the generational difference proposed by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and opposes the CBI's proposal?

Adrian Flook: I do not accept that I speak for the CBI.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend might care to reflect on the different constituencies that are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West and the CBI. The CBI is looking at these matters from the narrow perspective of business; that is quite proper, and it is a very important perspective. However, it cannot be a conclusive perspective in constitutional matters. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is perfectly legitimate for the CBI to come forward with a position concerning the narrow interests that it represents?

Adrian Flook: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention for an obvious reason. The CBI is entitled to hold that opinion, but it made it outside the Committee Room.

Desmond Swayne: I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the fact that the enthusiasm for the CBI's position that is exhibited by Labour Committee members will, at least, have some impact on the Minister's position when he comes to respond to the debate, because it is clear that the CBI's position is preferable to what is in the Bill at present.

Adrian Flook: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. On several occasions, Labour Committee members have tried to say that they agree with the CBI's support for a 10-year period, but I have no doubt that they will vote for their Minister's view that five years is the appropriate period. I do not see why we must agree, if they do not agree. My point is as simple as that.

John Butterfill: Order. The CBI's position is not proposed on the Order Paper. Therefore, can we leave it and return to what is on the Order Paper?

Adrian Flook: I am sure that we can.
 To conclude, I wholeheartedly support the amendment, and I want the Minister to explain why he believes that five years is long enough for people to be able to reflect more fully on their decision, especially as they will probably have taken that decision four or four-and-a-half years earlier, at most. I am surprised that he holds that opinion.

Nick Raynsford: We have had a most curious debate. The official Opposition have tabled a series of amendments. At one extreme, they would allow referendums to be held at any time; at the other, they would allow them to be held only every 20 years.

Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. Given the difficulties that this Committee labours under, is it in order for the Minister to refer to a consequential amendment in a way that misleads the Committee into imagining that it is to be treated as a substantive amendment?

John Butterfill: I have already explained that I am prepared to allow a degree of latitude, given the anomalies that were created by the change in order. However, it is fair for the Minister to make the points that he has made. I do not think that that is out of order.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I was simply making the point that I made in an earlier intervention. The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to allow a referendum to be held at any time, with no delay. That may not be the Opposition's intention, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pointed out, but it would be the effect of the amendment. At the other extreme, the Opposition would limit the time period to 20 years. However, during this morning's discussion, we were told that they rather approved of the CBI's option of 10 years. That looks to me like an attempt to reach a third way, which may indicate how the official Opposition is now moving.
 The problem is that, while the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was bravely trying to present the modernising tendency in his party, he was upstaged by the hon. Member for New Forest, West and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) who raised the flag for a generational period. At that point, we heard the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge hastily backtracking and telling us that the CBI presented only a limited and partial perspective. I suggest that the Opposition have more work to do before they have a convincing alternative to the Government's position. 
 I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton slightly curious. He conceded that the five-year period was probably right, but he had tabled an amendment in favour of a six-year period; for which, spectacularly, there is no support at all in this Committee. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman clearly anticipated that, because he did not even argue the case. He rapidly conceded that it was unrealistic. 
 I shall refer briefly to the effect of other amendments before coming back to confirm why we believe that a five-year period is right. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was almost certainly wise not to press amendment No. 30, which would have introduced a threshold of 50 per cent. One of the curious consequences of imposing such a threshold would be to provide a real disincentive to vote. People who disliked a proposition could well decide that the most effective way of stopping it would be not to vote at all. How can a democracy operate on such perverse disincentives? The Opposition were wise not to press the amendment.

Gary Streeter: In one of the towns in the country—I forget which one—only 11 per cent. voted for a directly elected mayor. If, in due course, a referendum were held in a particular region and only 11 per cent. voted, would the Minister consider that there had been a legitimate expression of popular opinion?

Nick Raynsford: I make two responses to the hon. Gentleman, who asks a perfectly fair question. The first was given by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who pointed out that the Government are charged with assessing the degree of interest in a particular region before requiring a referendum to be held. I openly admit that we would not be doing our job properly if we required a referendum in a region in which there was no interest at all in holding one. If we required a referendum in such a case, I suspect that our decision would be challenged.
 The second response is that the consequences of setting a threshold are perverse. The hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly highlighted that point. In Scotland, the effect of setting a threshold was to prevent the Scots from having a devolved Parliament for 18 years after they had first expressed a wish for it. That happened purely because an artificial threshold had been set. I put it to Conservative Members that the effect of the generational period for which the hon. Member for New Forest, West argued was the obliteration of their party's representation in Scotland in this place. That happened simply because of the Scots' irritation and anger at the Conservative party standing in the way of their legitimate wish for devolution.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has embarked on an interesting course. He said that if the kind of outcome that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) speculated upon were to occur, Ministers would have made the wrong decision in calling a referendum in that region. He even suggests that the decision to do so might be legally challenged. At what percentage of participation would the Minister feel comfortable about the decision that he had made, or that the Secretary of State had made? We may flatter the Minister by imagining that he would make the decision. Is it 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. participation? As the Minister can speculate on the possibility of legal challenge, and even identify the fact that he might have got it wrong if the turnout were very low, he should say where the moral threshold is, even if he rejects the idea of a threshold in the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: I resist the flattery and reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State will, quite properly, take the decision on the matter.
 That difficulty with thresholds is that there is no potential logic underpinning any figure. In certain circumstances, someone might argue that a 30 per cent. threshold was valid; in other circumstances, someone might argue for 40 per cent. The amendment that the Opposition have tabled, but have not really pressed, suggests a threshold of 50 per cent. What is the basis for any of those figures? They are all arbitrary. 
 I entirely and openly concede the point that turnout is important. That is why the Government are keen to encourage turnout and why we are trying to explore alternative ways of voting, such as postal voting, in pilots and local government elections. They have proved remarkably successful in encouraging a higher level of turnout in many areas.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will of course give way again.
 We are exploring alternative methods of voting, such as electronic voting. That is all part of a process to try to facilitate engagement and encourage turnout. There is no particular figure that anyone, putting their hand on their heart, could say ultimately determines whether there will be an adequate turnout for a particular outcome. I remind the Committee about Scotland. The failure to meet the 40 per cent. threshold in the 1978 legislation was a running sore that had dire political consequences for the Conservative party in subsequent years in Scotland.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says that any figure—20, 30, 40, or 50 per cent.—is arbitrary and he is, of course, right. However, I suggest that percentage turnout is probably the best hard evidence of a region's interest in holding a referendum. The Minister or the Secretary of State is charged, under clause 1, with determining the interest in a region. The Minister has already painted the scenario of a possible judicial challenge, or the Secretary of State getting it wrong. Are we not entitled to know what the expression ''got it wrong,'' means? What would the Minister consider to be the level of interest in holding a referendum that a region needed before it would be legitimate to order one, as evidenced by the eventual turnout?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman presses the point, but any figure quoted would have the defect of being, as he conceded, arbitrary. I have entirely accepted that turnout is important. I made the obvious point, in my response to the hon. Member for South-West Devon, that the 11 per cent. that he hypothecated would clearly be an unsatisfactory outcome, and would show that the Government had not done their job properly in assessing the level of interest. I was quite open about that. Any figure chosen arbitrarily is arbitrary, and could not be treated as a legitimate justification for denying those in a region who expressed a strong preference for regional government the opportunity to have it, as happened in Scotland.

Desmond Swayne: While the Minister may believe that the selection of a threshold is arbitrary, will he concede that there is an advantage in imposing a threshold—whatever it might be—because it will place the onus on the supporters of the proposition to raise their game and excite the electorate about their proposals? The right hon. Gentleman's alternative proposal would merely excite people about the way in which they vote, not what they are voting for.

Nick Raynsford: I have no doubt that those who are advocating elected regional assemblies will raise their game and campaign vigorously to obtain a positive outcome. As I have said, a threshold would be a perverse incentive for those opposed to the proposition not to vote; therefore, a couple of measures would be working against each other. People would be encouraging turnout, which appears to the position that the hon. Gentleman supports, but a threshold would have the opposite effect and discourage people from expressing their legitimate point of view. That is not a sound basis for a democratic process.
 The 20-year period that would be the effect of amendment No. 40 would be too long. It was clearly too long in the case of Scotland and I see no reason why different consideration should apply in the English regions. The disruption of local government is important. We acknowledged that in the White Paper and in our subsequence guidance on how we shall assess the interest in holding a referendum.

Lawrie Quinn: We have heard from Opposition Members about the involvement of local government and how much effort it seems to be making in preparation for regional government. Given the representation from those areas that will hold referendums first, is the Minister taking that as a sign of the great demand in those areas for regional government?

Nick Raynsford: I have already said that there is varied interest in elected regional assemblies in different regions. At present, some regions, especially some of the northern regions, have a strong appetite for them. However, we have not formed a firm view on that because we are in the process of undertaking soundings before a final decision will be taken. Our preliminary view is that in some other regions, particularly the south-east and east, there is only a limited appetite but, again, until we have taken the full soundings, I do not want to give a definitive view on the matter. It is right to recognise the different degrees of interest in elected regional assemblies and our framework under the Bill and in the White Paper allows regions to proceed at a different pace, depending on their appetite for such assemblies.
 That brings me back to the potential disruption to local government caused by a local government review. We recognise that there will be some disruption. I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton will bear with me and listen to me carefully because what I have to say will not necessarily support the views he expressed earlier about the Banham proposals in respect of Somerset. Such disruption should be minimised. The official Opposition suggested that there should be a simultaneous holding of referendums in each region, including 
 those regions where there is no appetite for them. Knowing that they must be preceded by a boundary committee review of local government, such an approach is chronically irresponsible. It would impose the maximum disruption for minimum benefit. Those regions that have no great interest in an elected regional assembly would still have to undertake the whole disruptive process of a local government review. That proposal has no credibility. 
 Looking back to the period of the Banham commission, three unitaries were proposed in Somerset—for west Somerset, mid-Somerset and south Somerset. I understood from the comments of some Opposition Members that they supported the principle of unitary government. However, the Conservative Government did not carry that through. The whole disruption of Banham—the disturbance described by the hon. Member for Taunton—was to no effect whatsoever.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between then and now is that people will have a say under our proposals. In the north-east, Tyne and Wear county council and, later, Cleveland county council were abolished without any consultation with local people, whereas we will give local people a say in regional government and about what the structure of their local government will be.

Nick Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend. The purpose of our proposals is to allow people to reach an informed judgment on the case for having an elected regional assembly and, at the same time, to be fully aware of the implications for local government. That is on the clear presumption—which has always been part of our policy—that three tiers of government below the national level is too many. In all other areas where devolution has taken place—Scotland, Wales and London—there is only one unitary tier of local government below the regional or equivalent level. That is what we propose. That is the right and logical process and structure. We accept that there will be an element of disruption, and our policy is to minimise it. Acceding to the wishes of the Opposition, however, would have the opposite effect.

Philip Hammond: Although the Minister's comments are phrased in a reasonable way, he must be aware of the flaw in his argument. In the referendum proposal, the decision on the form of local government to be enjoyed by people in county Durham and Northumberland will be determined by people who already live in unitary authorities within the north-east region. Is that consulting the people?

Nick Raynsford: Yes, it is. Everyone will have a vote and the votes of all participants in all areas will apply. As I understand it, the Opposition position is that local government changes should not proceed if the people in the part of the region affected are not in favour; relatively small areas could veto regional government, although the rest of the region might overwhelmingly wish for it.
 We accept that, inevitably, there will be a tension between different points of view in different parts of the region. However, our overriding principle is that there should be proper consideration of the options, which we are arranging, and a democratic vote on the principle of elected regional assemblies. At that point, people would know the consequences for local government.

Philip Hammond: Given that it will be an advisory referendum and that Ministers will have to consider the message that it sends, will the Minister give an undertaking that the counting of votes will be arranged so that it is possible to determine the separate outcomes in both unitary and non-unitary areas?

Nick Raynsford: We have not yet taken decisions on the counting arrangements; we need to get the statutory provisions in place first. However, there is a precedent. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will know that in the Greater London Authority legislation, for which I was the lead Minister, we made arrangements for the count to be declared separately in each London borough as well as giving the overriding figure for the whole of London. I believe that there was a similar arrangement in Scotland and Wales, although I am less conversant with those arrangements. We have not taken the decision yet, but I am conscious of the interest expressed by the hon. Gentleman on the subject.
 A five-year period strikes the right balance. People should not be left in continuous uncertainty because there is no time limit, but we should avoid setting an unreasonably long period; people's natural aspirations could be frustrated if there were no opportunity to revisit the issue. I quoted the example of Scotland, which is a telling illustration. There may be cases in which the outcome of the referendum is close or in which other areas had benefited because elected regional assemblies had been created there in the meantime. In such regions, where opinion had changed significantly over the course of three or four years, it would seem arbitrary in the extreme to deny people the opportunity to revisit their choice. We want to strike the right balance and we believe that an interval of five years does that. 
Mr. Hammond rose—

Nick Raynsford: I urge the Opposition to withdraw their amendments.

Philip Hammond: I was hoping to intervene on the Minister just there, but I shall make my point now. Have the Government set their face firmly against any reconsideration of the period between referendums? We can banter in the Committee about whether 20 years is too long a period or about whether an amendment asking for six years is irrelevant, but I get the impression from talking to third parties who have not been directly involved in discussions—for example, the members of the Local Government Association to whom I spoke yesterday—that the five-year period causes unease. I predict that, in the other place, many of my noble Friends and the noble Lords who sit on the Cross Benches or on the Liberal Democrat Benches will want to address this issue.
 They will wonder whether there is scope for movement by the Government. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government have totally closed their mind on this issue?

Nick Raynsford: Before a second referendum could be triggered, the Government would have to take further soundings. Such soundings would have to indicate a real interest in holding a referendum. There are therefore safeguards against arbitrary repeats of referendums that would not change the outcome.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment, but he has not answered the specific question. I hope that the Government will not set their face resolutely against reconsidering this issue.
 In arriving at the decision that five years was the correct interval, what consultations did the Government undertake with those parties that are likely to be most affected? In particular, what representations has the LGA made to him on this point? What consultation has there been with the Electoral Commission? The Government set it up to deal with issues surrounding referendums. At the time, most of us understood that it would remove decisions about the structure and conduct of referendums from the arena of political knockabout. Has the Minister used his power under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to consult and seek the advice of the Electoral Commission? What advice has it given him?

Nick Raynsford: I will respond briefly to those additional points. We believe that the five-year period is correct. That is why we have set it out and why I have argued for it today. We have heard arguments in favour of different periods but they have not been convincing arguments that would lead us to change our view.
 We are in constant contact with the Electoral Commission on a range of issues and we value its judgment on the issues on which it is charged with advising us, for example, on the proper conduct of elections and referendums and on matters such as how to encourage people to vote. We also study closely the representations that we receive from local government. The hon. Gentleman referred to the LGA meeting yesterday. He got his retaliation in quick by leaving before I had even got up to speak, although I acknowledge that my speech was delayed by matters relating to the industrial dispute, of which we are all very conscious. I tried, in difficult circumstances, to get to that meeting to speak, but I was later than I had hoped to be. 
 Clearly, people in local government express concerns. There is nervousness about this reorganisation, as there was when the previous reorganisation took place. That is why we are seeking to minimise the disruption by limiting referendums to regions where there is a clear appetite for them. There is likely to be disruption in those areas. We accept that there will be some disruption, but that is a necessary and appropriate consequence of the move to an elected regional assembly with a unitary structure of local government. 
 We do not want to extend that to regions where there is not an appetite for referendums. That is why this entire process is in the Bill—it will allow the Secretary of State to determine whether a referendum will be held. We will apply that same process to future situations in which referendums are sought in a region that has already had a referendum that has resulted in a no vote. 
 We have struck the right balance between conflicting pressures. We think that it is the appropriate balance and that it gives an opportunity to revisit the issue to people who might change their minds, without opening up too much scope for disruptive proposals for the reorganisation of local government.

Edward Davey: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply to this debate because he did not give us a feeling about why the Government settled on five years as the appropriate period. He made some amusing remarks when he claimed that I did not argue for 6 years, which my party's probing amendment proposes, but the purpose of probing amendments is to tease out real and substantive reasons from the Government—in this instance, about why they have selected a particular figure. However, the Minister did not offer substantive reasons. He talked about a balance, but I said in my opening remarks that a balance must be struck and the key question is, why have the Government struck this balance?
 The Minister did not explain why a five-year period strikes the right balance; he merely talked about the different tensions. I expected that he might have said that there was a precedent, or that the Government had drawn upon some international experiences, or that they had come to their conclusion after consulting with other bodies. I wanted to be told of some reason why five years was the most appropriate period—perhaps, because that is the maximum length of a Parliament's life, and that a parliamentary election would give some indication of how people are feeling, because, in my experience, there is no better way of finding out what people are concerned about than by getting out on their doorsteps and talking to them. Therefore, the idea that there was greater interest for a further referendum might come from such a parliamentary election campaign. 
 If the Minister is willing to reply to my short contribution, I would like him to give us an actual reason why five years is the right period—rather than merely to talk to the Committee about balance and judgment. Why does five years strike the right balance?

Nick Raynsford: I think that the question of precedent was addressed in the debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to be given additional justification—other than our judgment, which we believe is correct—he should be made aware that a five-year period is the provision within the Local Government Act 2000 for repeat referendums on mayoral constitutional arrangements. The hon. Member for South-West Devon referred to that. There is another obvious logical reason why we decided on five years; that is the maximum period for the life of a Parliament. Therefore, we believe that five years is appropriate. There is a precedent for it
 and, above all, it is the right period of time. I am sorry that we did not spell that out in more detail, but I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is now satisfied that five years is better than six.

Philip Hammond: I am glad to hear the Minister say that provisions in the Local Government Act 2000 are a precedent. That will be useful when we come to consider new clause 1, which is carefully modelled on that Act.
 I was disappointed that the Minister did not address the question of advice from the Electoral Commission. He said something like, ''We are in constant contact with the Electoral Commission.'' I will ask him on several occasions what advice he sought from it. I use the term ''advice'' advisedly; my understanding of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is that there is a formal mechanism by which the Government can consult and seek advice from the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission will publish such advice on its website, so that it will become a matter of public knowledge. There is an important distinction, from the practical point of view of members of the Committee, between the private constant contacts that I understand that the Minister's civil servants have with staff at the Electoral Commission, and the formal advice that the Government seek. 
 It is incumbent upon the Government, having creating the Electoral Commission, to seek its advice on any matters that are likely to be controversial when they publish a Bill proposing to use the device of a referendum. I asked the Minister whether he had done that. 
 Alternatively, although the Electoral Commission is required to give advice to the Government if it is sought, it will also give advice publicly to other parties—and, indeed, to political parties—if it thinks that it is in the public interest. There are a number of cases outstanding where political parties or campaign movements have publicly sought advice from the Electoral Commission, and I understand that in due course the advice will be available in the public domain. 
 If the Government are not prepared to seek the Electoral Commission's advice on issues such as the appropriate repeat frequency for referendums, it might be appropriate for another member of the Committee—acting on its behalf, as it were—to seek such advice.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman and I.

Philip Hammond: Yes, indeed. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton makes the useful suggestion that he and I, as the representatives of the Opposition parties on the Committee, might seek the Electoral Commission's advice. I suspect that that would not come in time to inform our deliberations in Committee, but it might be useful on Report, and to our noble Friends in the other place when they consider the Bill.
 However, we certainly would not want to duplicate effort, and as there is a statutory mechanism for the seeking of advice by the Government, it would be helpful if they were prepared to get on record the Electoral Commission's independent view of how the arrangements should work. Frankly, that would be a more coherent way forward than individual Members or the Opposition parties seeking to elicit that advice from the Electoral Commission. That is something for the Minister to ponder upon. 
 I said earlier that amendment No. 1 is consequential; the Minister has made great play of the fact that it would not stand alone, and I agreed with him. The only proper course of action is for me to seek leave to withdraw it, and come back to the substantive debate on the Floor of the House when we discuss amendment No. 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in
Clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end add 'subject to any finding to the contrary by any court of competent jurisdiction'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 4, in
Clause 10, page 5, line 3, leave out 'No Court shall' and insert 'A court shall only'.
 Amendment No. 5, in 
Clause 10, page 5, line 6, at end add 'if such a claim is brought within 10 days of the date of the referendum as specified in the order under section 2(1).'.
 I have been fairly tolerant, and have permitted a wide-ranging debate on the first group of amendments, but that means that I am now minded to use my powers under Standing Order No. 68 not to have a clause stand part debate. Hon. Members may wish to bear that in mind when speaking to amendment No. 3.

Philip Hammond: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Butterfill.
 Clause 5 is rather curious. The first two subsections deal with the issue of repeat referendums and the third deals with what—to the legally untrained mind—seems to be an interesting but completely separate issue. Following the previous debate, if we now address subsection (3), we will have exhaustively dealt with the entire content of clause 5. 
 We linked amendment No. 3 to amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which relate to clause 10. That clause proposed to rule out recourse to the courts in relation to any challenge to the outcome of a referendum decision. Amendment No. 3 would qualify subsection (3) by making it clear that the determining decision of the chief counting officer would be subject to any finding of a court of competent jurisdiction. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would bluntly change the meaning of clause 10 from providing that courts shall be excluded to providing that courts shall be included provided that matters are brought to their attention in a timely fashion. It is important in the context of a referendum that issues are raised within a short time; we have suggested 10 days from the date of the referendum. 
 There is something slightly repugnant about the idea that the courts are excluded from any jurisdiction 
 in something as important as the counting of votes or the declaration of a result of a referendum, and about the idea that a citizen of this country should be precluded by statute from accessing the courts. I am not a lawyer, but as our constitutional arrangements evolve, I wonder how that position stands up to the provisions of the European convention on human rights. I notice that there is a certificate by the Secretary of State on the cover of the Bill, saying that its provisions are compatible with convention rights. If any provision in the Bill begs the question of how it is compatible with convention rights, clause 10 is such a provision. 
 I do not want to bore you, Mr. Butterfill, because I think that you might have heard this anecdote before, but I shall tell it to the Minister. A lecturer who is a card-carrying member of the Labour party lives in my constituency.

Nick Raynsford: There is one?

Philip Hammond: There is one, at least, as the right hon. Gentleman observes.
 I think that the lecturer initiated the challenge to the Labour party's decision to conduct all-female shortlists before the past general election. He has written an interesting book in which he opines that a Minister who made the statement of compatibility on the cover of a Bill that was subsequently discovered not to comply with the convention would be obliged to resign because he had materially misled Parliament by issuing the statement. Will the Minister take that fact back to the Secretary of State so that he can have another little think about the statement? 
 It would be useful if the Minister explained to the Committee how excluding access to courts on the specified matters is compatible with the convention rights enjoyed, so I thought, by every citizen of this country. I understood that no person was above the law, but clause 10 appears to put the chief counting officer above the law for the specified purposes and makes him incapable of being challenged. Will the Minister explain the proper remedy for a person who believed that malpractice or, indeed, a simple error had occurred during counting procedures? 
 I do not want to anticipate the Minister's speech, but it has been suggested to me that the logic behind the clause is that the outcome of a referendum would not be binding, but merely advisory. In such circumstances, the aggrieved citizen would have to depend on making representations to the Secretary of State to set aside the referendum's apparent conclusion on the grounds of misconduct or a mistake. That is not an attractive solution. It flies directly in the face of one of the purposes behind the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998, which is that judicial processes should be separated from political processes. I should be grateful if the Minister explained the Government's logic in excluding access to the courts in such matters and the logic that allows such policy to be certified as compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Jim Knight: Let us consider the position if the referendum were not binding but advisory and the Secretary of State considered a position in which the
 vote was tight, as a result of which a legal challenge might be forthcoming, and did not go with the outcome of that referendum. Going to the court would be a waste of everyone's time and money. I note that the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer and I am pleased that he did not table the amendments to fuel the legal industry, but it would be a waste of time to pursue such matters through the courts. The precedent exists under the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The referendums in Scotland and Wales were carried out on the same basis, with no legal challenge for the same reason as I have explained.

Philip Hammond: If I were a lawyer, I would have declared an interest at the outset of our proceedings. I am always most careful about such matters.
 I am aware of the precedent, but two wrongs do not make a right. With the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, I prefer to rely on the independence of a High Court judge than the independence and impartiality of the right hon. Gentleman in such matters. The hon. Member for South Dorset raised an interesting point. We all know that such referendums are advisory. The Minister may want to say something about that, but I suspect that the people in region X would regard the situation as fairly rum if the majority of people voted in favour of—or against—an assembly and the Secretary of State decided to pursue a contrary course of action. While there is no clear statutory nexus between the referendum outcome and the establishment or otherwise of regional assemblies, there will be a strong, moral force bearing on the Ministers who make such a decision after the referendum has been held. 
 I am concerned about the proper mechanism for a challenge to be made. The hon. Gentleman is right. That is only likely to happen in a tightly fought referendum. Let us consider, for example, a contention that a batch of ballot papers was not counted, wrongly counted or lost, mislaid, stolen or misappropriated. My instinct is that the courts are the right places for such challenges to be made and, until we have heard what the Minister has to say, I cannot judge the strength of the argument for eliminating courts from that process. Such a proposal seems, however, to be a bad precedent and something that flies in exactly the opposite direction to the European convention on human rights and the human rights legislation that the Government have introduced, which seeks to remove partisan politicians from judicial or quasi-judicial processes.

Edward Davey: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Judicial review is an important process and, in general, it is wrong for this House to try to abolish judicial review, whether it is a process of law or one that is related to elections. I hope that the Minister has a stronger argument than simply referring to precedents for other Bills that the Government have introduced. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to ask whether such policies are compliant with human rights legislation. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that, if the clause went through unamended, the Bill would not create a real problem
 if there were a close contest. Whether the referendum will be advisory is not relevant; that will be quoted in the political argument. Taxpayers' money will have been spent on the referendum. It is right to know whether the number of votes counted is correct and, ultimately, that a decision can finally be taken only in the courts.

Gary Streeter: Will the Minister answer a couple of questions about the chief counting officer? How will
 the counting officer be appointed in such cases? To whom will the chief accounting officer be accountable under statute and what organisations or third parties—
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.